Comments on: ‘No hyperbole allowed … ‘ http://a2f2a.com/2009/10/25/no-hyperbole-allowed/ The net's first, and only, artists-to-fans-to-artists blog! Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:57:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Fred http://a2f2a.com/2009/10/25/no-hyperbole-allowed/comment-page-1/#comment-169 Fred Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:06:18 +0000 http://a2f2a.com/?p=154#comment-169 "Nobody is denying that artists, especially those who really achieve worldwide fame, have special talents, but are their special talents that much more valuable than those of many other people? Jon has a special talent for finding news and presenting it in an interesting way, but his income is in no way commensurate with the amount of time and brainpower he has to expend every day. Would we value our great artists less if their income level was brought down from stratospheric heights?" Forgive an unenlightened free-marketer response, but the income an artist earns is based pretty much on their popularity. I don't see the advantage, or the practicality to placing an upper limit on that. And what is the proposal for dealing with what must be deemed earnings in "excess" of the bar we set? Do we give it to less popular artists to balance the playing field? Or do I get to keep it in my pocket? I've spent long enough in the business, and heard enough unsolicited demos, to know that most people who want a career as a musician aren't going to make it, and they aren't going to make it because they just aren't making good enough music. I would rather spend $10 on a concert ticket for one of my favorite acts than spend only $8 on that ticket and have to spend $2 on a ticket for someone I don't want to see. In one case, I've spent the money where I want it to go. In the other, I have wasted $2. “Nobody is denying that artists, especially those who really achieve worldwide fame, have special talents, but are their special talents that much more valuable than those of many other people? Jon has a special talent for finding news and presenting it in an interesting way, but his income is in no way commensurate with the amount of time and brainpower he has to expend every day. Would we value our great artists less if their income level was brought down from stratospheric heights?”

Forgive an unenlightened free-marketer response, but the income an artist earns is based pretty much on their popularity. I don’t see the advantage, or the practicality to placing an upper limit on that. And what is the proposal for dealing with what must be deemed earnings in “excess” of the bar we set? Do we give it to less popular artists to balance the playing field? Or do I get to keep it in my pocket?

I’ve spent long enough in the business, and heard enough unsolicited demos, to know that most people who want a career as a musician aren’t going to make it, and they aren’t going to make it because they just aren’t making good enough music. I would rather spend $10 on a concert ticket for one of my favorite acts than spend only $8 on that ticket and have to spend $2 on a ticket for someone I don’t want to see. In one case, I’ve spent the money where I want it to go. In the other, I have wasted $2.

]]> By: thepeer http://a2f2a.com/2009/10/25/no-hyperbole-allowed/comment-page-1/#comment-149 thepeer Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:47:15 +0000 http://a2f2a.com/?p=154#comment-149 "Find the actual numbers and levels that we are asking for from fans to sustain the eco-system" Excellent proposal! “Find the actual numbers and levels that we are asking for from fans to sustain the eco-system”

Excellent proposal!

]]>